On the subject of Jewish-Catholic relations, I’d like to draw your attention to an essay by my friend and colleague Rabbi Mark Gottlieb on the eccentric theories of a scholar, Israeli diplomat, and devout Jew named Pinchas Lapide (1922–97). Lapide argued in one of his several books that the Christian doctrine of Jesus’ resurrection does not contradict Jewish theology—even if other Christian claims about him do. Gottlieb explains how Lapide built his theory on the works of the rabbinic giants Moses Maimonides (1135–1204) and Jacob Emden (1697–1776), and its relevance for Jews today:

First, concerning the possibility of the miraculous in our largely secular culture, the major divide between believers and skeptics is not about any particular occurrence—for there may be rational criteria for distinguishing between what one believer will claim is a credible instance of the miraculous and another will deny—but on the question of whether or not the very possibility of the miraculous is accepted as a feature of reality. Reading Lapide on the resurrection brings this issue to a head.

Lapide [also] invites Jews to see all of world history, the many nations and peoples shaped by the Christian confession, as part of Jewish history, as part of “our” narrative, driven by both divine providence and human initiative. Too many students of history, some motivated by animus against Jews, others just reading history through a materialist lens, have placed the Jewish people on the periphery of the human drama. (In some accounts, that changed in the 20th century when Auschwitz—or the state of Israel—became a focal point of Western self-examination.) Lapide, without succumbing to a false triumphalism, reverses the narrative, aligning the divine drama of world history with the Jewish story of salvation.

Concluded in 1979, the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty ended nearly 30 years of intermittent warfare, and proved one of the most enduring and beneficial products of Middle East diplomacy. But Egypt may not have been upholding its end of the bargain, write Jonathan Schanzer and Mariam Wahba:

Article III, subsection two of the peace agreement’s preamble explicitly requires both parties “to ensure that that acts or threats of belligerency, hostility, or violence do not originate from and are not committed from within its territory.” This clause also mandates both parties to hold accountable any perpetrators of such acts.

Recent Israeli operations along the Philadelphi Corridor, the narrow strip of land bordering Egypt and Gaza, have uncovered multiple tunnels and access points used by Hamas—some in plain sight of Egyptian guard towers. While it could be argued that Egypt has lacked the capacity to tackle this problem, it is equally plausible that it lacks the will. Either way, it’s a serious problem.

Was Egypt motivated by money, amidst a steep and protracted economic decline in recent years? Did Cairo get paid off by Hamas, or its wealthy patron, Qatar? Did the Iranians play a role? Was Egypt threatened with violence and unrest by the Sinai’s Bedouin Union of Tribes, who are the primary profiteers of smuggling, if it did not allow the tunnels to operate? Or did the Sisi regime take part in this operation because of an ideological hatred of Israel?